State v. Garrard
| Decision Date | 20 March 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 06AP-685.,No. 06AP-653.,06AP-653.,06AP-685. |
| Citation | 867 N.E.2d 887,170 Ohio App.3d 487,2007 Ohio 1244 |
| Parties | The STATE of Ohio, Appellee, v. GARRARD, Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Ron O'Brien, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney, Richard Termuhlen II, and Seth Gilbert, Assistant Prosecuting Attorneys, for appellee.
Dennis Pusateri and Carol A. Wright, for appellant.
{¶ 1} Defendant-appellant, Jason L. Garrard, appeals from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas, whereby the trial court convicted appellant of failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer, a third-degree felony, pursuant to a bench trial.
{¶ 2} On October 3, 2005, appellant was indicted on one count of (1) rape, a first-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2907.02; (2) felonious assault, a second-degree felony, in violation of R.C. 2903.11; and (3) failure to comply with an order or signal of a police officer ("fleeing"), in violation of R.C. 2921.331. Ordinarily, under R.C. 2921.331, fleeing is a first-degree misdemeanor; however, plaintiff-appellee the state of Ohio, indicted the fleeing as a third-degree felony, pursuant to R.C. 2921.331(C)(5)(a)(ii), alleging that, in fleeing, appellant "caused a substantial risk of serious physical harm to persons or property."
{¶ 3} Appellant pleaded not guilty to the above charges. He invoked his right to a jury trial on the rape and felonious-assault charges, but waived his right to a jury trial on the fleeing charge. Thus, the parties tried the fleeing charge before the trial court. Ultimately, the jury found appellant not guilty of rape and felonious assault, and such charges are not the subject of this appeal.
{¶ 4} As for the fleeing charge, Columbus Police Detective James Shockey testified to the following on behalf of appellee. On September 12, 2005, Detective Shockey interviewed appellant about the above-noted rape and related offenses, and the officer informed appellant that charges might be filed against him.
{¶ 5} Thereafter, on September 23, 2005, Detective Shockey sought to execute an arrest warrant on appellant and his codefendant, Christina Robinson. That day, Detective Shockey worked with Detectives William Brubaker and Timothy Elkins. The detectives were using an unmarked vehicle.
{¶ 6} Initially, Detective Shockey arrested Robinson at an apartment on Brookway. While making the arrest, Detective Shockey saw the following:
[A] vehicle that was traveling from Livingston Avenue down towards the apartment. About midway * * * it had stopped, and unknown people from the neighborhood had stopped and were talking to the driver and were pointing down towards our direction.
After that brief conversation, the car continued this way. As it continued towards Brookway, [Robinson] told us that was [appellant] coming.
* * *
As the car continued, rather than stopping here in the parking lot, it continued around this bend. As it continued, Detective Elkins got into our plain car and began to exit the parking lot and went in the direction of where the car was.
{¶ 7} Although Detective Shockey remained at the scene of Robinson's arrest, the detective did notice that a black male was driving the car that Detective Elkins followed. Later, Detective Elkins returned to the scene of Robinson's arrest, and he indicated that when he reached the car he was following, no one was in the car. Thus, the detectives decided to search for appellant at his mother's apartment. A police cruiser arrived to transport Robinson to police headquarters, and the detectives drove to appellant's mother's apartment.
{¶ 8} Upon reaching appellant's mother's apartment, Detective Shockey saw that the car they had seen driving on Brookway had passed them. The detectives, with Detective Shockey driving, followed the car. Because they were in an unmarked car, the detectives sought assistance by stating over the police radio that they had a wanted felon in front of them.
{¶ 9} Two police cruisers began following appellant. The cruisers' red and blue beacons were activated, and one cruiser got behind appellant's vehicle. Appellant did not stop at first, but after driving through several streets, appellant eventually stopped, and police officers apprehended him. After the apprehension, some of appellant's family members
{¶ 10} Columbus Police Officer Michael Bruce testified to the following on appellee's behalf. On September 23, 2005, Officer Bruce was on patrol with Officer Samuel Hazlerig. Officer Bruce was driving the cruiser, and the officer responded to the detectives' request for assistance in pursuing appellant. When Officer Bruce was on Mt. Vernon Avenue, he discovered appellant driving in his car. Officer Bruce eventually activated the cruiser's emergency lights and sirens to pursue appellant. At that point, appellant went down to Garfield Avenue, continued on Garfield to Buckingham, made a westbound turn on Buckingham, crossed over Buckingham, and then pulled to the north side of Buckingham. The officers then "actually made contact with [appellant] and took him into custody." Appellant was the only person in the car.
{¶ 11} Officer Bruce also testified that it was about 8:00 p.m. when the pursuit occurred. Officer Bruce further noted that the pursuit took place in an area mixed with residences and businesses. Officer Bruce specifically noted that Buckingham was a residential street. Additionally, Officer Bruce testified that 150 seconds had lapsed between his receiving the detectives' request for assistance and appellant's apprehension.
{¶ 12} On cross-examination, appellant's trial counsel asked Officer Bruce whether appellant actually knew that Officer Bruce had had his lights on. Officer Bruce stated that he could not testify as to what appellant knew. Officer Bruce also testified on cross-examination that during the initial part of his pursuing appellant, he knew that they were attempting to catch the vehicle, and he had to use a substantial amount of acceleration to catch it while he had the lights and sirens going. Officer Bruce further stated that appellant had made a rapid deceleration on Buckingham and that once they were close enough to the vehicle, appellant "curbed it, which is not what a normal person would do when they arrive at their destination." Officer Bruce then testified on cross-examination that he did not recall whether appellant had a safe place to pull over prior to the location on Buckingham where appellant did stop.
{¶ 13} Next, Detective Elkins testified to the following on appellee's behalf. On September 23, 2005, Detective Elkins accompanied Detective Shockey during the attempts to serve warrants on appellant and Robinson. The detectives found Robinson sitting in a vehicle in a parking lot, and she stated that appellant would be right back. Later, Robinson stated: "[T]here he is right now." At that time, a car came northbound on Brookway and stopped. Appellant was driving the car and looked at the detectives when he stopped. A woman walked over to the car and started speaking to appellant, and appellant drove away on Brookway.
{¶ 14} Detective Elkins attempted to follow appellant, but could not find him. Detective Elkins started looking in the parking lots around the area, and he found appellant's car near Rand Avenue. Detective Elkins tried to catch up to the man, but was unable to do so.
{¶ 15} Detective Elkins then returned to the other detectives, and they drove to appellant's grandmother's house to see whether they could find him. Upon arriving at appellant's grandmother's house, the detectives saw appellant drive right past them. Next:
[The detectives] called for patrol officers to assist. [Appellant] left at a high rate of speed, going down * * * Mt. Vernon. [Appellant was] just flying down Mt. Vernon. And the patrol officers happened to be in the area, and they got behind him and * * * they used their lights and sirens trying to get him to stop.
[Appellant] continued fleeing up some side streets over towards where the little side streets dead end.
{¶ 16} Detective Elkins indicated at trial that the first time police were behind appellant with lights and sirens was on Mt. Vernon Avenue, and the street where appellant stopped may have been Buckingham. Detective Elkins also testified that eventually, they had cruisers "all over the place" pursuing appellant. Detective Elkins then testified that appellant ultimately stopped his car, and police apprehended him. Detective Elkins reiterated that during the pursuit, appellant was driving fast and that he did not "know what the rate of speed was." He said,
{¶ 17} On cross-examination, Detective Elkins confirmed that the detectives' vehicle did not have lights and sirens. Detective Elkins also testified that due to his line of vision, he could not tell how far behind appellant the police cruisers were during the pursuit.
{¶ 18} Next, Gregory Young testified to the following on appellee's behalf. Young and appellant had been previously incarcerated at the same time in the Franklin County jail. Young is serving a 240-month sentence on a federal cocaine conviction. Appellant told Young about his fleeing from law enforcement. Specifically, appellant told Young that
{¶ 19} Martin Kiggans testified to the following on appellee's behalf. Kiggans and appellant had also previously been incarcerated at the same time in the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Cihonski
... ... 900 N.E.2d 218 ... v. Glover, 10th Dist. No. 07AP-832, 2008-Ohio-4255, 2008 WL 3878365; where the trial court did not allow a defendant ... 178 Ohio App.3d 721 ... to make a closing argument absent express, intentional, and voluntary relinquishment, State v. Garrard, 170 Ohio App.3d 487, 2007-Ohio-1244, 867 N.E.2d 887; where the record strongly suggested that the trier of fact considered a defendant's silence, In re K.B., 12th Dist. No. CA2006-03-077, 2007-Ohio-1647, 2007 WL 1041427; and where the trial court failed to determine whether a defendant's choice of ... ...
-
State v. Bailey
... ... It is only the strong possibility that harm could occur that creates culpability under R.C. 2921.331(C)(3). State v. Semenchuk, 122 Ohio App.3d 30, 701 N.E.2d 19(8th Dist. 1997); Accord, State v. Garrard, 170 Ohio App.3d 487, 2007-Ohio-1244, 45(10th Dist.); State v. Harrison, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 07AP-98, 2007-Ohio-5099, 19; State v. Love, 9th Dist. Summit No. 21654, 2004-Ohio-1422{27} Based on the circumstances described above, the jury could reasonably conclude that a substantial risk of ... ...
-
Laning v. Doyle
... ... Doyle, Sergeant John Doe, Police Chief Robert Schommer, and the City of Huber Heights, Ohio, alleging various constitutional violations and state law claims arising out of Officer Doyle's arrest of Marcia Laning ("Laning"). This matter is currently before the Court on Defendants' Motion for ... See State v ... Garrard , 170 Ohio App. 3d 487, 496, 867 N.E.2d 887, 893 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007) (holding that the term "willfully," as used in 2921.331(B), means ... ...
-
Harmon v. Hamilton Cnty., Case No. 15-4125
... ... e ... Trooper Chris Sanger arrives; Harmon taken to ground; Haynes uses taser ... Trooper Chris Sanger of the Ohio State Highway Patrol arrived as the deputies were trying to pull Harmon out of the car. Harmon , 2015 WL 5697475, at *3. "It did not appear to Page 6 ... As the Ohio Court of Appeals explained, the term "willfully," as used in this statute, connotes a sense of "purpose[]." State v ... Garrard , 867 N.E.2d 887, 893-94 (Ohio Ct. App. 2007). Ohio Rev. Code. Ann 2901.22 provides: (A) A person acts purposely when it is his specific intention ... ...